The Truth About 'Fluoride'

[TruthBrigade]

The Truth About 'Fluoride'

    (or what every Mother should know)

    by A. True Ott
    tott@mountainwest.net
    © August 2000
http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm

    Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile. Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats.

    First of all, it needs to be stated that the 'substance' referred to as 'Fluoride' is a misnomer - there is no such substance listed in the periodic chart of the elements, nor in the prestigious CRC handbook, nor in the sacred 'bible' of the pharmaceutical industry - the illustrious 'Merck Index'. Instead, we find a GAS called Fluorine - and from the use of this gas in various industries such as aluminum manufacturing and the nuclear industry -certain toxic byproducts are created which have 'captured' fluorine molecules. One such toxic, poisonous 'byproduct' is called sodium Fluoride - which according to the Merck Index is primarily used as rat and cockroach poison and is also the active ingredient in most toothpastes and as an "additive to drinking water". But sadly, there is much more to this sordid tale.

    Did you know that sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin Nerve Gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUORIDE) - (Yes, folks the same Sarin Nerve Gas that terrorists released on a crowded Japanese subway train!). Let me repeat: the truth the American public needs to understand is the fact that Sodium Fluoride is nothing more (or less) than a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminum industries. In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is also a main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well as military NERVE GAS! Why, oh why then is it allowed to be added to the toothpastes and drinking water of the American people?

    Historically, this substance was quite expensive for the worlds' premier chemical companies to dispose of - but in the 50's and 60's - Alcoa and the entire aluminum industry - with a vast overabundance of the toxic waste - SOMEHOW sold the FDA and our government on the insane (but highly profitable) idea of buying this poison at a 20,000% markup and then injecting it into our water supply as well as into the nation's toothpastes and dental rinse. Yes that's right folks, a 20,000% markup. Consider also that when sodium Fluoride is injected into our drinking water, its level is approximately 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink ½ of one percent of the total water supply, the hazardous chemical literally 'goes down the drain' and voila - the chemical industry has not only a free hazardous waste disposal system - but we have also PAID them handsomely in the process!!

    Independent scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers and mental disturbances, and most importantly, makes humans stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one neat little package. There is increasing evidence that aluminum in the brain is a causative factor in Alzheimer's Disease, and evidence points towards sodium fluoride's strong affinity to 'bond' with this dangerous aluminum (remember it is a byproduct of aluminum manufacturing) and also it has the ability to 'trick' the blood-brain barrier by imitating the hydrogen ion thus allowing this chemical access to brain tissue.

    Honest scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on sodium fluoride's mega-bucks propaganda campaign have consistently been given a large dose of professional 'black-listing' and thus their valid points disputing the current vested interests never have received the ink they deserve in the national press. Just follow the money to find the 'control' and you will find prominent American families to be prominent 'players' in the scandal. In 1952 a slick PR campaign rammed the concept of 'fluoridation' through our Public Health departments and various dental organizations. This slick campaign was more akin to a highly emotional "beer salesman convention" instead of the objective, scientifically researched program that it should have been. It has continued in the same vein right up to the present day - and now sodium fluoride use has now become 'usual and customary'.

    To illustrate the emotional vs. the scientific nature of this issue, just look at the response given by people (perhaps yourself included?) when the subject of fluoridation comes up. You need to ask yourself, "Is this particular response based on EMOTIONS born of TRADITION, or is it truly unbiased and based instead on thoroughly researched objectivity?" There is a tremendous amount of emotional, highly unscientific "know-it-all" emotions attached to the topic of 'sodium fluoride' usage -but I personally have yet to find even ONE objective, double blind study that even remotely links sodium fluoride to healthy teeth at ANY AGE. Instead, I hear and read such blather as "9 out of 10 DENTISTS recommend 'fluoride' toothpaste" etc. etc. etc. Let me reiterate: truly independent (unattached to moneyed vested interest groups) scientists who've spent a large portion of their lives studying and working with this subject have been hit with a surprising amount of unfair character assassinations from strong vested-interest groups who reap grand profits from the public's ignorance as well as from their illnesses. (Just follow the money!)

    Do you have diabetes and/or kidney disease? There are reportedly more than 11 million Americans with diabetes. If it is true that diabetics drink more liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference these 11 million people are at much higher risk drinking fluoridated water because they will receive a much deadlier dose because of their need for higher than normal water consumption. Kidney disease, by definition, lowers the efficiency of the kidneys, which of course is the primary means in which fluoride (or any other toxic chemical) is eliminated from the body. Does it not make sense that these people shouldn't drink fluoridated water at all? Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where ill kidney patients on dialysis machines died because they ingested relatively small amounts of SODIUM FLUORIDE from unwittingly drinking the 'fluoridated' city water supply? Will adequate warnings be given to people with weak kidneys, or will the real cause of such deaths be 'covered up' in the name of 'domestic tranquility'?

    Concerning the 'practice' of putting sodium fluoride into drinking water, where did this insanity begin and WHO tried it first? From personal research, the very first occurrence of purposefully putting sodium fluoride into drinking water was in the German ghettos and in Nazi Germany's infamous prison camps. The Gestapo you see had little concern about sodium fluoride's 'supposed' effect on children's teeth; instead, their reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to STERILIZE HUMANS and force the people in their concentration camps into calm, bovine, submission. (See for reference: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" written by Joseph Borkin.) Kind of shocking isn't it folks!! Ah, but it gets even better.

    The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from a research chemist by the name of Charles Perkins. He writes:

    "I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, "The Truth about Water Fluoridation", to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. In the 1930's Hitler and the German Nazis envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

    "Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient and cost-effective light lobotomy? --- Ott].

    "The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty."

    "When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communize the world."

    "I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."

    Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.

    Another letter needs to be quoted at length as well to help corroborate Mr. Perkin's testimony. This letter was written by a brilliant (and objectively honest) scientist named Dr. E.H. Bronner. Dr. Bronner was a nephew of the great Albert Einstein, served time in a WWII prison camp and wrote the following letter printed in the Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952:

    "It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the 'next' on the agenda of the water poisoners.

    "There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless intellectual parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic ---- from within if they can, according to their plan --- for their own possession."

    "The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us."

    "Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. As a research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years 3 American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of practical experience in the health food and chemical field, let me warn: fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide. DON'T DO IT!!"

    "Even in very small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most effective rat-killer. Sodium Fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God's great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body; whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it."

    "Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious, patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed that instead of preserving or promoting 'dental health', fluoridated drinking water destroys teeth before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of bodies consuming it. How then can it be called a 'health plan'? What's behind it?"

    "That any so-called 'Doctors' would persuade a civilized nation to add voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It is the height of criminal insanity!"

    "No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin's 'Last Will' and Hitler's Mein Kampf: "America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within."

    "Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other countries. Sodium Fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective rat killers known to chemists: colorless, odorless, tasteless; no antidote, no remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats."

    "Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity ------- treason!!"

    Signed: Dr. E.H. Bronner, Research Chemist, Los Angeles

    Apparently, the public outcry by Dr. Bronner and others precluded the fluoridation of public water systems for a season - but soon thereafter, the Food and Drug Administration allowed this deadly poison to be put in 'toothpaste', and our dentists were systematically brainwashed into providing 'fluoride treatments' to their many patients. Of course, today many major metropolitan areas have a minimum of 1 parts per million sodium fluoride systematically added to their water supply and more areas are seeking to add this poison every year. Add to this the fact that bottling companies (soft drinks, juices, etc.) use fluoridated water to make their products - is it any wonder that people can no longer think clearly and ask pertinent questions of their elected and ecclesiastical leaders? Is it also a mystery why so many top Nazi mind control scientists were brought to America by the CIA and their infamous 'Operation Paper Clip'?

    If you believe all of this is 'just a coincidence' - go ahead and keep brushing your teeth with your 'fluoride' toothpaste and sucking on your sodium fluoride enhanced Coke or Pepsi product - for ignorance truly is bliss and you truly deserve what you get.

    Mothers, if your little ones are having trouble concentrating at home or in school, or have been diagnosed as 'attention deficit' - perhaps you would be well advised to look for the culprit (and the solution to the problem) no further than your home medicine cabinet (your tube of toothpaste) and your friendly neighborhood school's water fountain!!

[TruthBrigade]

Fluoridation / Fluoride

Toxic Chemicals In Your Water

http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: For more information on health-building techniques, please see the Holistic Healing Web Page.


Fluoride compounds which are put in water (fluoridation), toothpaste and supplement tablets (including some vitamins) were never tested for safety before approval. Recent independent research by scientists not associated with dental trade organizations has shown the following:


Neurotoxic and Lowers IQ
In 1995, neurotoxicologist and former Director of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix published research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when exposed to moderate levels. Damage to the brain occured and the behavior patterns of the animals was adversely effected. Offspring of pregnant animals receiving relatively low doses of fluoride showed permanent effects to the brain which were seen as hyperactivity (ADD-like symptoms). Young animals and adult animals given fluoride experienced the opposite effect -- hypoactivity or sluggishness. The toxic effects of fluoride on the central nervous system was subsequently confirmed by previously-classified government research. Two new epidemiological studies which tend to confirm fluoride's neurotoxic effects on the brain have shown that children exposed to higher levels of fluoride had lower IQs.


A study published in Brain Research shows that rats drinking only 1 part per million fluoride (NaF) in water had histologic lesions in their brain similar to Alzheimer's disease and dementia. In addition, evidence was seen pointing to possible damage to the blood brain barrier from extended fluoride exposure. This study was the third in a series of papers published by Varner et al. Brain Research Vol. 784 No. 12 p 284-298 (1998). Results of this recent study and other studies showing significant dangers from low-level fluoride exposure were presented at a recent scientific symposium.


Causes Cancer
The Department of Health in New Jersey found that bone cancer in male children was between two and seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers confirmed the bone cancer-causing effects of fluoride at low levels in an animal model. A new study has shown that fluoridation of water is linked to uterine cancer deaths.


Changes Bone Structure and Strength
Fluoride gradually builds up in the bones and causes adverse changes to the bone structure. Quite a few studies have shown that fluoridation leads to increases in hip fractures. The tensile strength of the hip is destroyed over time by fluoride ingestion.


Causes Birth Defects and Perinatal Deaths
A toxicologist in the United Kingdom recently found that perinatal deaths in a fluoridated area was 15% higher than in neighboring non-fluoridated areas. The fluoridated area had a higher socio-economic status and would have been expected to have less perinatal deaths. The fluoridated area also had a 30% higher rate of Down's Syndrome. Chile banned fluoridation because of research by the world-reknowned researcher, Dr Albert Schatz, which showed a link to infant deaths due to fluoridation.


Proven Ineffective
Fluoride compounds in water and in supplements do not provide any significant cavity-protecting effects. All of the recent large-scale studies of water fluoridation have shown that there are no positive effects. That is why countries without fluoridation have shown an equal improvement in dental health as those with fluoridation. (See Research Item #5.) There is scientific evidence that excessive fluoride exposure leads to increased levels of caries. Even pro-fluoridation scientists admit that there is not any properly-conducted research showing that fluoride supplements help prevent cavities. (Note: check vitamins carefully to be sure they do not include fluoride.)


Impairs Immune System
Independent research has shown that fluoride impairs the functioning of the immune system. In the United States, where toxic fluoride compounds are regularly added to water and given to children since the 1960s and 1970s, we are beginning to see an overwhelming number of people of that generation who are developing chronic immune system disorders.


Causes Acute Adverse Reactions
Several double-blind studies have shown that fluoridated water can often cause acute adverse reactions (in addition to the chronic poisoning effects discussed below). Some of the effects seen in double-blind studies include: gastrointestinal symptoms, stomatitis, joint pains, polydipsia, headaches, visual disturbances, muscular weakness, and extreme tiredness. An enlightening review of a book by one famous and well-respected researcher from The Netherlands who found adverse reactions in double-blind experiments can be read here.


Causes Initial Stages of Skeletal Fluorosis
Fluoride can cause severe skeletal fluorosis at high levels. Chronic, long-term exposure to levels of fluoride commonly found in water and food in the U.S. can cause the beginning stages of skeletal fluorosis including: pains in bones and joints, sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs, muscle weakness, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, reduced appetite, backache, osteoarthritis, etc. In fact, decades of ingestion of fluoride from water and other common sources can be expected to cause these symptoms in large numbers of people based on calculations of fluoride intake and excretion. (Keep in mind that fluoride is a cumulative poison since it builds up in the body of years.) Very few healthcare practitioners are capable of diagnosing such a condition because healthcare practitioners are not trained to test for or recognize the effects chronic poisoning from fluoride.


Increases Lead and Arsenic Exposure
Fluoride compounds put into water are often contaminated with lead, arsenic and radio nuclides since the fluoride compounds are toxic waste byproducts which largely come from pollution scrubbers of fertilizer plants. A study published in 2000 showed that the dumping of toxic silicofluoride compounds into water ("fluoridation") causes an increase in blood lead levels in children.


Fluoride Causes Osteoarthritis
In a study published in Rhuematology International in 2001, researchers found a link between fluoride exposure and the development of osteoarthritis. The level of exposure that caused osteoarthritis is common in the United States.


Contributes to the Development of Repetitive Stress Injury
A clinical study in New Zealand showed that fluoride ingestion may be a contributing factor in the development of Repetative Stress Injury (RSI) since such ingestion may encourage the development of apatite crystal formation. Elimination of fluoride plus regular supplementation of magnesium appeared to help RSI patients considerably.


Causes Permanent Disfigurement of the Teeth in Many Children
A very large and increasing number of children are experiencing dental fluorosis which is a permanent adverse structural change to the teeth.


Inhibits Key Enzymes
As fluoride builds up in different parts of the body over decades it can disrupt the actions of many key enzymes. This fact has been known for a long time.


Supresses Thyroid Function
Fluoride was given at low levels during the early to mid 20th century as an effective way of supressing thyroid function and treating hyperthyroidism. Articles and research can be found on the Thyroid web page.


Causes Large Numbers of Acute Poisonings
Fluoride is an extremely poisonous substances at exceptionally low doses and has caused a large number of acute poisonings. This is why a poison warning is now required on fluoridated toothpastes sold in the U.S.


Independent Experts Oppose Dumping Fluoride Into Water
Over 1500 professionals at the US EPA, including toxicologists and risk assessment experts voted unanimously to oppose the fluoridation initiative in California because of the health risks involved. See summary or official EPA union statement. Even the Candian Dental Association Consultant and Researcher urged people to avoid drinking fluoridated water.


Unethical
Fluoridation amounts to forced medication of the water supply. Such practices demonstrate a complete lack of ethics on the part of its promoters. Studies as early the 1930s showed extreme hazards to man and the environment due to fluoride dumping and exposure. Companies and organizations involved used the promotion of "fluoridation" as a way to avoid lawsuits due to dumping toxic wastes and later for economic gain. Please read the short history of fluoridation for more detailed information.


Banned in Many Countries
Fluoridation is not legal or not used in the overwhelming number of countries including industrialized countries. Please see Fluoride Status of Countries web page.


Many independent researchers, organizations, holistic healthcare experts and a growing number of dentists who avoid the use of toxic substances are warning their patients to avoid fluoridated water and fluoridated toothpaste and to definately not give children any fluoride since they appear to be more susceptible to the neurological toxicity from fluoride.

If your water department adds toxic fluoride compounds to the water, the best course of action is usually to drink and cook with bottled "spring" water. Carbon filters do not remove fluoride compounds to any significant extent. Avoid putting fluoridated water in humidifiers. Many non-organic juices have large amounts of fluoride from pesticide residues. It is best to juice your own vegetables and fruits from organic produce or go to a health food store to purchase organic juices.

Avoid toothpastes that have fluoride even if the manufacturers claim that the fluoride came from "natural" sources. Even though topical fluoride treatment may have an effect to help remineralize cavities at the early stages, the combination of a healthy diet, proper dental hygiene and saliva can have a similar effect. It is impossible to avoid swallowing some fluoride from fluoridated toothpaste. I have tried various toothpastes and current use the natural Weleda toothpaste with baking soda. I like that fact that it does not contain fluoride or the detergent, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS).

More detailed information about fluoride and proper dental care:


Fluoridation Does Not Prevent Tooth Decay


Fluoride: Detailed General & Scientific Information


Fluoride: Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research


Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children: Main Page / Toxicological Profile / Thyroid Page


International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology Position Paper on Fluoridation (Click on Download Article)


Scientific Statement Signed By 1,500+ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Scientists and Professionals


NoFluoride.com (Statements by Scientific and Medical Experts)


Fluoride Action Network


Fluoride Issues Web Page


Fluorides & Fluoridation: Evidence Based on Science?


Citizens for Safe Drinking Water


Fluoride: The Deadly Legacy by Gary Null


Book Review: The Fluoride Deception


History of Fluorine, Fluoride and Fluoridation


Article & Resources for Eliminating Dental Disease


Alternatives to Fluoridated Water


Preventive Dental Association


Dental Fluorosis Prevention Program

[TruthBrigade]

 CHAPTER 280
P.O. BOX 76082
WASHINGTON, DC 20013
202-260-2383(V)
202-401-3139(F)

http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm

May 1, 1999
WHY EPA'S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.1

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others4 reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China5, 6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston.8

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue.9 The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey12 , Washington and Iowa13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997.14 Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.16 The latest publication17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important.18 Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health.19, 20, 21 However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste.22 Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media23 that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America's children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.24

This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683. His E-mail address is hirzy.john@epa.gov

END NOTE LITERATURE CITATIONS

1. Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61.

2. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)

3. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).

4. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998).

5. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

6. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995).

7. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994).

8. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956).

9. Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW.

10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

11a. Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984).

11b. Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984).

11c. Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

11d. An increase in the number of Down's syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985).

12. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992).

13. Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991).

14. New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997).

15a. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990)

15b. Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah's elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992).

15c. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992).

15d. Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly [letter]. Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995).

15e. Water fluoridation and hip fracture [letter]. Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991).

16. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyiannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990).

17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.

18. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 29-44 (1997).

19. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999).

20. Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999).

21. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999).

22. Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991).

23. Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998.

24. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.

OTHER CITATIONS (This short list does not include the entire literature on fluoride effects)

a. Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994)

b. Ameliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988).

c. Milk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986).

d. Maternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988).

e. Effects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985).

f. Fluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987).

g. Fluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979).

h. An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981).

i. The effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988).

j. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988).

k. The crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984).

l. Intracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986).

m. Fluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937).

n. Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997).

o. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993)

[TruthBrigade]

DID GOVERNMENT APPROVE CITIZENS AS TOXIC WASTE SITES?
ARE WE BEING POISONED?

"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."
-Winston Churchill-

It has been a long established joke about not drinking the water in Third World countries. Now it is here in America that the water has been declared unsafe to drink, and it is no joke. Whereas the greatest problem with water in the underdeveloped nations is usually such as amoebic dysentery, serious but reversible, in the U.S. it is rat poison one gets in the drinking water--and it is no accident.

Extensive studies, ignored with a yawn by those who believe they are being served well by the media and various dental associations, have shown that the consumption of fluoride in drinking water and prescription doses is extremely harmful and deleterious in a number of ways.

Reputable researchers from such as Harvard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and numerable other research investigators, have shown that fluoridation of drinking water can result in brain and other physiological damage producing such abnormalities as:

a.. Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
b.. Hyperactivity or passive malaise -- depending on whether exposure is pre- or postnatal
c.. Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia
d.. The death of brain cells directly involved in the decision making processes
e.. Cracked, pitted and brittle teeth and bones not being considered as a potential leading cause of osteoporosis
f.. Higher hip fracture rates
g.. Reduction in intelligence and increased learning disability
The list goes on of primary and ancillary defects and damage caused by the addition of a substance used in rat poison.

In a 1997 copyrighted article once seriously considered for publication by The New York Times Magazine, investigative reporter Joel Griffiths followed a convoluted trail of once-secret documents stretching as far back as the Manhattan Project. In a subsequent article entitled, "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb" Griffiths collaborated with journalist Christopher Bryson to piece together not only the origin of water fluoridation, but its secret rationale and the insidious reasoning behind the introduction into the drinking water of two-thirds of American cities of what is nothing more than a toxic waste product.

Griffiths told The WINDS that The New York Times Magazine had shown great interest in his original article to the point of suggesting specific rewrites resulting even in the submission of a final working draft. Then, according to Griffiths, their interested suddenly disappeared. Later when Bryson joined with Griffiths the two journalists had a similar experience with The Christian Science Monitor who had actually accepted their final co-authored work for publication but never put it in print and finally canceled.

The authors, who have worked for such as the BBC, New York Public Television, The Christian Science Monitor and others, boldly introduced their work by stating, "The following article exposes the biggest ongoing medical experiment ever carried out by the United States government on an unsuspecting population," and continues with meticulously verified sources derived largely from documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. ***

"One of the most toxic chemicals known," they claim, "fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S. atomic bomb program -- both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal." Other revelations include:

"Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide 'evidence useful in litigation' against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show."

Dr. John R. Lee, MD[2], was chairman of the Environmental Health Committee of his local medical association in Marin County, California when he came head-to-head with the fluoride issue. According to Dr. Lee, the county had continually pushed water fluoridation on the local ballot until it passed by a slim one per cent.

"The medical society was receiving a lot of phone calls from people who were wondering what the truth was about the benefit, or lack of benefit, of fluoride. As a result, they turned it over to the Environmental Health Committee."

Dr. Lee was the perfect, unbiased investigator because, "Up until then," he told The WINDS, "I didn't know anything about fluoride, so our committee got the scientific references from both sides of the issue. We studied the references that led to more references--and we tracked it all down and found that the fluoride literature is mostly hogwash.

"Then," he continues, "we asked the medical society if we could do a study to determine how much fluoride there already was in the food--because in Canada they had been monitoring that and found that there was a lot of fluoride in their food chain due to, among other things, processing with fluoridated water.

"Our study of the food that children eat determined that there was plenty of fluoride in it and there was really no reason to add more to the water because it already exceeded what the public health department determined was the maximum daily dose.

"That's when I became aware of what was going on and went to testify at the State Board of Health. It was amazing to see these guys come out with their references that really aren't references--statements taken out of someone else's paper that wasn't based on anything--a kind of circular, self-referencing research. ["Joe said it so now I can quote Joe, even though Joe was just quoting me."] They would take statements made in textbooks that were published before there was any fluoridation and food was not being processed with fluoridated water--and they would just change the dates. We found all these tricks being played with the data. It was then that I discovered that it was not a scientific dispute but dishonest trickery. It was all a sham."

When The WINDS asked Dr. Lee why, according to his research into the controversy, he thought there was so much political force driving the fluoridation movement, the physician/scientist said, "It's a toxic waste product of many types of industry; for instance, glass production, phosphate fertilizer production and many others. They would have no way to dispose of the tons of fluoride waste they produce unless they could find some use for it, so they made up this story about it being good for dental health. Then they can pass it through everyone's bodies and into the sewer." [A novel approach to toxic waste disposal--just feed it to the people and let their bodies "detoxify" it]. "It is a well coordinated effort," Dr. Lee added, "to keep it from being declared for what it is--a toxic waste."

This could cause one to wonder if the public were not already aware of the dangers of radioactive plutonium waste, what means the government would use to dispose of it.

Dr. Lee's argument carries considerable credibility in light of the revelations proceeding from Griffiths' and Bryson's research into the previously classified documents. That research shows, as mentioned previously, that the idea of fluoride being good for people's teeth originated with the atomic bomb's Manhattan Project. That "fact" that fluoride was beneficial constituted the government's cardinal defense against lawsuits stemming from an environmental contamination that took place from the Du Pont chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey in 1944. "The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan Project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb."

It should be noted here that, without exception, all scientists interviewed during the course of researching this article agreed upon one overwhelming motivation for the government's vigorous promotion of water fluoridation and other dental applications of fluoride--though they've known since the mid 30's of the highly toxic nature of the substance. That unanimous opinion was that it ultimately posed a very tidy solution to the disposal of a very nasty toxic waste. One EPA scientist quoted previously, Dr. William Hirzy, went so far as to conjecture that the red ink that would be produced by the fertilizer industry alone, if it were required to properly dispose of fluoride as a waste product, would exceed $100 million a year. As the legendary New York City Police Detective, Frank Serpico, was once warned, "With that kind of money you don't [mess] around."

The WINDS has obtained a copy of a letter dated March, 1983 on EPA letterhead, written by then U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer. In that document Ms. Hanmer frankly admits that:

In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency [the EPA] regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product [read that: toxic waste-product] fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.

Keeping in mind that the EPA considers a spill of more than twenty-five pounds of common table salt an environmental hazard or "incident", in fairness it must be asked, first, is fluoride really effective in reducing tooth decay and, secondly, at the same time is it safe for drinking water?

The answer to the first question: not according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

...Investigators have failed to show a consistent correlation between anticaries [cavities] activity and the specific amounts of fluoride incorporated into enamel.

...Since the 1970s, caries scores have been declining in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere. ...National decreases have not occurred in all countries, notably Brazil and France where the caries scores have not changed, and Japan, Nigeria, and Thailand where the scores have increased." [3] [Japan & Thailand report high dietary fluoride levels].

A TRAIL OF CASUALTIES
The political and financial forces surrounding the fluoride industry, according to Dr. Lee and others, are vicious and unrelenting in their assaults upon anyone daring to place themselves at odds with it. Dr. Lee briefly outlined cases with which he is personally acquainted where reputable doctors and scientists have had their careers either ruined or severely crippled as the result of trying to introduce truth into this darkness-shrouded global enterprise. Cases in point:

a.. During the time of the election [to decide on whether or not to fluoridate the county's water supply], Lee said the head of the Marin County Public Health Department was claiming "it was beneficial and perfectly safe. After the election, when I discovered all these things, I presented them to her, showing her all the tricks that had been used. She then asked the state public health department if she had the power to stop the fluoridation, realizing she had been mistaken. The next thing I knew," Lee continued, "she had taken early retirement and left for New Orleans to take care of her mother. She told me that if she made any statement about it at all she would have lost all her retirement benefits."

b.. Dr. Allan S. Gray, a British Columbia health officer, did a study of all school children's teeth in that province, which is only about 15% fluoridated. He found that the teeth of those children in British Columbia where there was no fluoridation were in much better condition than in the fluoridated areas. His findings were published in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, entitled, "Time for a New Baseline?" [4]. So the message was that fluoridation did not provide any benefit to children and for publishing that research the top public health dentist in British Columbia was demoted and sent to Ottawa where he was put in a basement office and ordered to never speak to anybody about the matter again. If he did, he would lose his standing in the public health department of Canada and very likely all of his retirement benefits.

c.. Dr. John Colquhon, an Aukland, New Zealand dental researcher with a prominent university, performed studies on children's teeth and the neighboring towns that were not fluoridated and discovered the children had no difference in cavity rate--they just all had fluorosed teeth [damage done by the presence of fluoride in their drinking water]. When he published his findings he was demoted and lost all of his retirement benefits and was forced to retire. As a Ph.D. he had to take a teaching position--all of the people he had considered his colleagues for thirty years suddenly didn't recognize him any more."

d.. Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., formerly of Harvard University experienced the wrath of the industry when she walked blindly into the fluoride fray as part of her research program with Harvard's Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry. While holding a dual appointment to Harvard and the Forsyth Dental Research Institute, Dr. Mullenix established the Department of Toxicology at Forsyth for the purpose of investigating the environmental impact of substances that were used in dentistry. During that undertaking she was also directed by the institute's head to investigate fluoride toxicity. That's where, as she puts it, "things got weird."
THE DARK ODYSSEY OF DR. PHYLLIS MULLENIX
While conducting interviews and gathering the data contained in this writing, this office was repeatedly referred by EPA scientists, university professors and physicians to Dr. Mullenix's research at the Forsyth Dental Institute as a primary and seminal source of reliable scientific research on fluoride toxicity.

The Forsyth Dental Center is a highly respected research institution established in 1910 for the purpose of providing free dental care for the children of Boston. It is the largest and, considered by many, the most highly respected dental research institution in the world. All Harvard dental students are required to take a portion of their training at Forsyth.

It is interesting to note that the, then, director of the institute, Dr. Jack Hein, who was responsible for her assignment to fluoride toxicology studies was, according to Mullenix, instrumental in some of the original research that led to the introduction of fluoride into toothpaste while he was working for Colgate.

"I wasn't too excited about studying fluoride," Mullenix told this reporter, "because, quite frankly, it was 'good for your teeth' and all that, and I thought the studies would be basically just another control and I had no interest in fluoride." However, because it was part of what she was hired to do, she said, and because she had just astounded the institute by achieving the unattainable--securing a grant from the National Cancer Institute to study the neurotoxicity of the treatments used for childhood leukemia--she decided to incorporate the fluoride studies into that research milieu. In fact, Mullenix claimed, "I was in the top four per cent in the country" for such funding. "The institute was tickled pink, but I really had no idea what a quagmire I was getting into."

For her toxicology studies Dr. Mullenix designed a computer pattern recognition system that has been described by other scientists as nothing short of elegant in its ability to study fluoride's effects on the neuromotor functions of rats.

THE "MIRACLE OF FLUORIDE" -or- A DIRTY INDUSTRY?
"By about 1990 I had gathered enough data from the test and control animals," Mullenix continues, "to realize that fluoride doesn't look clean." When she reviewed that data she realized that something was seriously affecting her test animals. They had all (except the control group) been administered doses of fluoride sufficient to bring their blood levels up to the same as those that had caused dental fluorosis [a brittleness and staining of the teeth] in thousands of children. Up to this point, Mullenix explained, fluorosis was widely thought to be the only effect of excessive fluoridation.

The scientist's first hint that she may not be navigating friendly waters came when she was ordered to present her findings to the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) [a division of NIH, the National Institute of Health]. "That's when the 'fun' started," she said, "I had no idea what I was getting into. I walked into the main corridors there and all over the walls was 'The Miracle of Fluoride'. That was my first real kick-in-the-pants as to what was actually going on." The NIH display, she said, actually made fun of and ridiculed those that were against fluoridation. "I thought, 'Oh great!' Here's the main NIH hospital talking about the 'Miracle of Fluoride' and I'm giving a seminar to the NIDR telling them that fluoride is neurotoxic!"

What Dr. Mullenix presented at the seminar that, in reality, sounded the death knell of her career was that:

"The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy [to cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause I.Q. deficits in children. That's one of the best studied effects they know of. The behavioral pattern that results from the use of fluoride matches that produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence."

At a meeting with dental industry representatives immediately following her presentation, Mullenix was bluntly asked if she was saying that their company's products were lowering the I.Q. of children? "And I told them, 'basically, yes.'"

The documents obtained by authors Griffiths and Bryson seem to add yet another voice of corroboration to the reduced intelligence effects of fluoride. "New epidemiological evidence from China adds support," the writers claim, "showing a correlation between low dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children."

Then in 1994, after refining her research and findings, Dr. Mullenix presented her results to the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology [5], considered probably the world's most respected publication in that field. Three days after she joyfully announced to the Forsyth Institute that she had been accepted for publication by the journal, she was dismissed from her position. What followed was a complete evaporation of all grants and funding for any of Mullenix's research. What that means in the left-brain world of scientific research, which is fueled by grants of government and corporate capital, is the equivalent to an academic burial. Her letter of dismissal from the Forsyth Institute stated as their reason for that action that her work was not "dentally related." [Fluoride research--not dentally related?] The institute's director stated, according to Mullenix, "they didn't consider the safety or the toxicity of fluoride as being their kind of science." Of course, a logical question begs itself at this last statement: why was Dr. Mullenix assigned the study of fluoride toxicity in the first place if it was not "their kind of science"?

Subsequently, she was continually hounded by both Forsyth and the NIH as to the identity of the journal in which her research was to be published. She told The WINDS that she refused to disclose that information because she knew the purpose of this continual interrogation was so that they could attempt to quash its publication.

Almost immediately following her dismissal, Dr. Mullenix said, the Forsyth Institute received a quarter-million dollar grant from the Colgate company. Coincidence or reward?

Her findings clearly detailed the developmental effects of fluoride, pre- and postnatal. Doses administered before birth produced marked hyperactivity in offspring. Postnatal administration caused the infant rats to exhibit what Dr. Mullenix calls the "couch potato syndrome"--a malaise or absence of initiative and activity. One need only observe the numerous children being dosed with Ritalin as treatment for their hyperactivity to draw logical correlations.

Following her dismissal, the scientist's equipment and computers, designed specifically for the studies, were mysteriously damaged and destroyed by water leakage before she could remove them from Forsyth. Coincidence?

Dr. Mullenix was then given an unfunded research position at Children's Hospital in Boston, but with no equipment and no money--what for? "The people at Children's Hospital, for heaven's sake, came right out and said they were scared because they knew how important the fluoride issue was," Mullenix said. "Even at Forsyth they told me I was endangering funds for the institution if I published that information." It has become clear to such as Dr. Mullenix et al, that money, not truth, drives science--even at the expense of the health and lives of the nation's citizens.

"I got into science because it was fun," she said, "and I would like to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled." If one harbors any doubt that large sums of corporate money and political clout can really provide sufficient influence to induce scientists and respected physicians to endorse potentially harmful treatment for their patients, consider the results published in a January 8th article of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)[6]. The Journal revealed their survey of doctors in favor of, and against, a particular drug that has been proven harmful (in this case calcium blockers shown to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer in older women). "Our results," the Journal said, "demonstrate a strong association between authors' published positions on the safety of calcium-channel antagonists and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers."

When The WINDS asked Dr. Mullenix where she planned to take her research, she said that she is not hopeful that any place exists that isn't "afraid of fluoride or printing the truth."

The end result of the dark odyssey of Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and her journey through the nightmare of the fluoride industry is, essentially, a ruined career of a brilliant scientist because her's was not "their kind of science".

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
It has become evident, as the result of the once-secret documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson that Dr. Mullenix's research was not the first to discover the dangers of fluoride. "The original secret version -- obtained by these reporters -- of a 1948 study published by Program F [the code name given fluoride studies] scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) -- considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies -- for reasons of national security." One would necessarily have to ask what the perceived threat was to national security if fluoride was found to be toxic by the American Dental Association. Did they perhaps perceive a potential threat as proceeding from the American people?

"...Up to eighty percent," the Griffiths/Bryson article continues, "in some cities -- now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases)."

Dr. William Hirzy, an organic chemist and a senior scientist in Environmental Risk Assessment with EPA originally became involved in the fluoride issue "as a matter of professional ethics when one of the EPA scientists came to us and complained that he was being asked to write a Federal Register notice with which he has substantial ethical problems." The scientist protested that "the agency wants me to write this notice that says it's alright to have teeth that look like you've been chewing on rocks and tar balls. I have a real problem with that," he told Hirzy.

To issue a notice of intended regulation in the Federal Register means that after a specified period of time the notice essentially becomes law and is entered into either the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or the United States Code (USC). This process is a much used manner of creating law by circumventing the constitutional process of legislation. It becomes what is called "administrative law."

"At that time," Hirzy said, "EPA was revising its drinking water standards for fluoride and was about to issue a notice that four milligrams per liter was an acceptable level of fluoride for drinking water." The great problem with that, Hirzy explained, "indicated that a substantial number of people who were exposed to that concentration would have teeth suffering from severe dental fluorosis eroded, cracked and pitted and stained....The agency [EPA] was saying that it was not a health effect, it was only cosmetic. Frankly," Hirzy remonstrated, "it doesn't seem to be a very ethical stance for us to say that if your teeth don't work--if they're cracked and pitted and falling out--that it's not a health effect.

"The agency," Hirzy told The WINDS, "was taking that position because of the peculiar wording of the Safe Drinking Water Act which says that EPA has to set standards that protect against adverse health effects with an adequate margin of safety." So they wanted to say, according to Dr. Hirzy, that "severe dental fluorosis is not an adverse health effect." If, in essence, you just say it is not an adverse health effect, you then effectively comply with the law by juggling the definition.

The great problem with the system, Hirzy explained, is that the EPA is not a constitutionally mandated organization and therefore cannot [or is not supposed to] make law but can only advise the executive branch of government. The dilemma arises when whatever administration is in office comes to the agency and says, "We want you to write that the science supports this particular decision, whatever it may be, that's where I draw the line and say 'no dice, we're not going to do that....You can't make us lie about the science.' It makes us complicit in deception. We do not want to have to invoke the Nuremberg defense," (i.e., I was just doing what I was told).

Hirzy said that the EPA, in fact, got away with imposing a standard that effectually ruins the teeth of very many who drink fluoridated water because, though "widely known to cause severe fluorosis at four milligrams per liter, that is the standard in effect to this day."

Of even more ominous portent, Hirzy said, is that, far from being merely cosmetic in effect, "what's going on in the teeth is a window to what's going on in the bones. What fluoride does in the hydroxy-epitite structure in teeth it does to the same structure in bone. It is well known now that fluoride produces faulty bone, more brittle, basically mimicking in the bone what is clearly visible in the teeth." A kind of artificial osteoporosis.

"It's an outrageous situation," the EPA scientist claims, when you have fluoridated household drinking water in such concentration that the agency must inform parents that they "should not be allowing their children to drink four milligrams per liter of fluoride, and if they have that in their water supply they should go to an alternative source." Does it not seem a little strange that the government authorizes the addition of a chemical to ostensibly help children's teeth and then tells parents not to allow their children to drink it? We are most certainly not in Kansas anymore, Toto!

So toxic is the fluoride added to drinking water that, according to Hirzy, if one were to take a dose of it about half the size of that "500 mg vitamin C tablet you take in the morning, you'd be dead long before the sun went down. When you're talking about something with that kind of potent toxicity," he says, "it's unrealistic to think that the only adverse effect it has is death. It must be doing something intracellularly to cause these effects."

As evidence that the government has known for over sixty years that fluoride is a health hazard, Hirzy quoted from an article, "clear back in 1934 in which the American Dental Association plainly treats the subject very matter-of-factly. It calls fluoride a general protoplasmic poison."

Robert Carton, Ph.D., twenty years with EPA and now employed as a scientist with the Army, claims that, on "July 7, 1997 the EPA scientists, engineers and attorneys who assess the scientific data for the Safe Drinking Water Act standards and other EPA regulations have gone on record against the practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water.

Question: if the Environmental Protection Agency possesses the clout to virtually confiscate a man's land because some of it is a little soggy--calling it wetlands--why do they not exercise that power to enforce de-fluoridation of drinking water, which they have declared unsafe? Does money play any role in this?

Dr. Carton informed this office that fluoride itself is not the only major hazard stemming from its introduction into city water supplies. "A very real danger lies in the fact that fluosilicic acid leaches lead from plumbing. "There are a couple of places in the country," Dr. Carton said, "Seattle being one and Thermont, Maryland...that when they stopped adding fluoride to their water the lead levels dropped in half."

The problem with the data used to determine the safety of fluoride, Carton said, is that it is all based on the original figures presented by the chief scientist in charge of the Manhattan Project's fluoride safety, Dr. Harold Hodge. He falsified or "cooked the numbers," as Carton put it, to make his data fit what the government wanted.

In addition to the dental and skeletal damage caused by fluoride, Dr. Carton also cites research that claims that a specific antibody (immunoglobulin - IgM) that is missing from patients with certain types of brain tumors is also missing from the blood of those tested with elevated blood fluoride levels. This is leading many to theorize that such brain tumors are much more likely among individuals consuming fluoride compounds in their diet. Since most juice concentrates and food stuffs are processed with fluoridated water, such blood elevations are becoming much more common.

ENOUGH ALREADY? NOPE, THERE'S MORE--
In a study published last October in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences [7], Dr. Robert L. Isaacson makes a number of astounding revelations about this toxic waste in our water.

"Probably the most startling observation from our first experiment," Isaacson states, "was the high mortality rate in the group of animals that received the lowest dose of AlF 3 [aluminum fluoride]. Different groups of rats had been given one of three levels of AlF3 in double distilled drinking water: 0.5 ppm, 5 ppm, and 50 ppm starting at about four months of age. A fourth group received only the distilled water." The experiment lasted only 45 weeks but, Isaacson stated, "Eighty per cent of the rats in the [lowest concentration group] died before the end of the experiment" which was the highest mortality rate of all. "Not only did the rats in the lowest dose group die more often during the experiment, they looked poorly well before their deaths. Even the rats in the low dose group that managed to survive until the end of the 45 weeks looked to be in poor health. They had much thinner hair than those in the other groups and the exposed skin was bronzed, mottled and flaky. Their teeth and toe nails were excessively dark." Follow-up studies, the scientist said, "showed the same high level of mortality." The study goes on to say that, in subsequent research, low levels of the same kind of fluoride that is added to city drinking water "also allows the enhancement of brain levels of Al."

Another prominent finding by Isaacson's group was the significant reduction on the cells of the hippocampus, that part of the brain that acts like a central processing unit in a computer, telling other parts what to do and how to function. The hippocampus is the primary decision making part of the brain, damage to which causes the victim to become more submissive and less challenging to his environment. One could logically question if this is not a pivotal reason for the government's push for universal fluoridation.

In the brain of his low dose test animals, Isaacson observed a tangling of capillary blood vessels, reduced oxygen uptake along with the peculiar crystalline structures, all of which are identical to those found in Alzheimer's victims. Dr. Isaacson's research indicates that the Alzheimer's-like effects result from the transport of aluminum to the brain and the high death rates from the toxicity of the fluorine.

Aluminum has previously to this, of course, been implicated in Alzheimer's, but how is the link made between fluoridation of human drinking water and the presence of aluminum fluoride? According to Drs. Carton and Burgstahler, fluoride being the most electrochemically active of all the elements, it has a strong propensity to create metallic compounds with itself whenever fluoridated water comes into contact with such things as aluminum cooking vessels. Ergo: there is created aluminum fluoride from cooking with such vessels using fluoridated water and not incidentally, according to Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA scientist, aluminum is used in city water treatment.

"An incidental observation of possible importance must be mentioned," the research paper adds. "Pathologic changes were found in the kidneys of animals in both the AlF 3 and NaF [sodium fluoride] groups." If all this weren't enough, the research team observed a "general impairment in the immune capacities of the treated subjects." They also found that the death rate increased among those animals treated with the aluminum fluoride where stress was elevated due to a training regime.

The research clearly indicates that not only does the presence of fluoride reduce the body's ability to utilize oxygen and nutrients, but actively inhibits the system's ability to rid itself of waste. This creates an apparent synergistic assault upon the health by poisoning the body with its own toxic waste while impairing its effectiveness to use the nutrients that would help in the detoxification process.

In the face of overwhelming data proving that fluoride is not only not beneficial but extremely harmful; the reliable evidence that the government has known of this for over sixty years; the continuing press for fluoridation in the drinking water of American cities, makes all the more believable the portentous claim set forth in the Protocols:

"...We now appear on the scene as apparent saviors of the common worker, saving him from this oppression by enrolling him in the ranks of our various forces fighting for imaginary civil liberties. The upper class, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy and strong. We are interested in just the opposite-in the diminishment, the killing out of the nations. Our power is in the chronic...physical and mental weakness of the worker. What that results in is his being made the slave of our will, and he will not find in the authorities of his own society either the strength or energy to oppose us."

REFERENCES:

1. "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", Griffiths & Bryson, 1997. Author Griffiths indicated that this URL contains an accurate reproduction of their article.

2. John R. Lee, MD, article: "The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation", April 15, 1995.

3. "Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks", Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991, p. 7 & p. 31.

4. The Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Vol. 53, pp 763-765, 1987.

5. "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Mullenix, P. Neurotoxicology and Teratology", 17(2), 1995.

6. The New England Journal of Medicine -- January 8, 1998 -- Volume 338, Number 2 [SPECIAL ARTICLE] "Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists", Henry Thomas Stelfox, Grace Chua, Keith O'Rourke, Allan S. Detsky.

7. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 825 "Neuroprotective Agents, Third International Conference." Title: "Toxin-Induced Blood Vessel Inclusion caused by the Chronic Administration of Aluminum and Sodium Fluoride and their Implication for Dementia." Robert. L. Isaacson, et al, p. 152-166.

Further reading:

FLUORIDE: Protected Pollutant or Panacea? A very extensive source for scientific papers published on fluoridation

Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., Former EPA scientist. Article: "Corruption and Fraud at the EPA"

The following resources appear valid but The WINDS was unable to fully verify their authenticity and therefore make no claims for such, with the exception that this office has ascertained that Dr. William L. Marcus is currently employed by the EPA.

Richard G. Foulkes, M.D., Article:"Celebration or Shame? Fifty Years of Fluoridation (1945-1995)"

William L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Letter.

Written 1/30/98. ***Updated 11/13/98 to correct and clarify historicity

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.

This page is in the public domain.

[TruthBrigade]

Very rare video footage of cells being damaged by sodium fluoride - what's in your toothpaste?


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/saZAwB9P2iQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/saZAwB9P2iQ</a>

[TruthBrigade]

Fluoridation: The scam of the century

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 by: Hesh Goldstein
http://www.naturalnews.com/031335_water_fluoridation.html#ixzz1E5oacaJm

This scam starts as follows: the CDC (Centers For Deceit Control and Procrastination) in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of August 17, 2001/Vol 50/ No. RR-14 entitled "Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, says on page 4, 5th paragraph, "that fluoride's predominant effect is after the tooth comes into the mouth and on the surface of the tooth".

The question posed to the CDC, the EPA, and the Public Health officials of "why then do we have to ingest it?" NEVER gets answered.

Then there's the issue of INFORMED CONSENT. Every doctor knows that they can't force any medication on an individual without their informed consent. The doctor has to tell the patient of the benefits and of any side effects of a prescribed medication. This puts the final decision to take or not take the medication in the hands of the patient. In addition, the patient has the right to question any treatment so as to make a better decision.

Fluoridation clearly violates this principle.

One of the arguments presented by those that push this crap is to say that no one is forced to drink the water. Yes, the fluoride comes to the tap but ultimately it's the individual's choice to open the tap and drink the water. Please stop laughing. This is their serious argument.

Another argument is that fluoride is not a drug but rather it is a nutrient. So when the question of since when is the toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry or the aluminum or steel industry a nutrient? They usually look at their watches and tell you that they hear their mother calling them and they have to go.

If it is indeed a nutrient why then do the CDC and the ADA (American Dimwit Association), the major pushers of fluoridation in the U.S., say that tooth decay is a "chronic infectious disease" and recommend fluoride to combat this disease? And why does the Fraud and Drug Administration call fluoride an "unapproved" drug? What a classic example of blatant hypocrisy and the anything goes mentality to make money for the pimp.

Earl Baldwin, a member of the British House of Lords and one of the advisory board members for the York Review, the UK sponsored review of fluoridation had this to say: "What physician do you know, who in his or her right mind, would treat someone he does not know and has never met, with a substance that's meant to do change in their bodies, with the advice: 'Take as much, or as little, as you like, but take it for a lifetime because it may help someone's teeth'?"

With fluoridation there is no control over who gets the "medication" or the dosage. What if someone is particularly sensitive to the substance? Tough! What if you're an athlete and drink a gallon of water a day? Tough!

When a person consumes a medication, say aspirin for example, isn't the dose for an infant or a child different that that for an adult? Obviously. With fluoride it's a one-fits-all mentality.

Let's say for a moment that the ingestion of fluoride is a good thing. Who gets more? Your body or your dishes when you wash them, your car when you wash it, your lawn when you water it, or the environment when you flush the toilet? You answer that one and then let me know if mandated fluoridation is a good thing or a bad thing.

Should you raise the issue of reduced tooth decay it has already be proven and documented that those living in unfluoridated communities have virtually the same rates of tooth decay as those living in fluoridated communities. But, there is one profound difference: those living in fluoridated communities have a much, much greater risk of dental fluorosis, which is symptomatic of the discoloration and eventual mottling of the teeth leading to a lifetime of cosmetic veneers or living with the disfiguration.

As if ruining your teeth isn't enough there has been credible documentation showing other debilitating effects. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix proved that fluoride had an adverse effect on the brain. As a result she was told that her work "was no longer relevant to dentistry" and fired. Peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects on the thyroid gland were ignored as were studies linking fluoride to damage of the pineal gland. The pineal gland is located between the two hemispheres of the brain and is responsible for the synthesis and secretion of melatonin. Melatonin affects jet lag, sleep patterns and aging and by the time old age hits, the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland is in very high concentrations.

But wait, there's more. There is also a profound connection between fluoride and bone damage. With symptoms almost identical to arthritis beginning with aching bones and joints. But the best cover-up had to come out of Harvard University. Elise Bassin, as part of her 2001 doctoral thesis for her dental degree, found a connection between fluoride and bone cancer in adolescent boys. When she submitted her finding to Dr. Chester Douglas, the head of Harvard's Dental School, he omitted that finding when releasing her thesis. Why would he do this? Maybe the fact that he was on the payroll of the Colgate-Palmolive Company had something to do with it. Somehow, years later, Bassin's finding were found and released causing Harvard to do a complete investigation on Dr. Douglas. During the investigation Dr. Douglas made a $2 million donation to Harvard and was eventually exonerated.

One other finding was an adverse effect on the kidneys. It was found that fluoride can damage the kidneys at high levels and that someone with poor kidney function would have limitations clearing fluoride from the body making that person especially vulnerable to fluoride's other toxic effects.

With all this adversity is there any group, organization or government agency accepting any responsibility? No, No, No! One would think that of the entities heavily involved in fluoridation someone would take charge or accept liability. The American Dental Association does not. The CDC does not. The EPA does not. The FDA does not. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services does not. The National Sanitation Foundation does not. Yet, all these government agencies pass the buck to the National Sanitation Foundation who in turn accepts no liability for the safe levels or the safety of the chemicals it recommends. Pimps, hookers and tricks!

So what started out as an experimental program in 1945, without any health studies done whatsoever, turned out to be a "cash cow" for industries that previously had to dispose of this toxic waste to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

There is a book out there entitled, Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle means that if there is uncertainty, yet credible scientific evidence or concern of threats to health, precautionary measures should be taken.

Applying the Precautionary Principle to fluoridation the following questions and answers arise:

1. Is the risk of harm plausible? Yes.
2. Is the evidence of harm supported by a number of peer-reviewed published studies? Yes.
3. Is the potential harm serious? Yes.
4. Are the effects reversible? Many are not.
5. Is the public being fully informed of the potential health risks? No.
6. Does the proposed intervention achieve the desired benefit? No.
7. How significant are the consequences if the practice is halted? Not very.
8. Are there alternatives? Yes.

Joel Tickner and Melissa Coffin, two scientists that examined the water fluoridation controversy in the context of The Precautionary Principle, raised the following questions in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice.

*Whether there are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply.
*Whether fluoride needs to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay.
*Whether tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with and without water fluoridation.
*Whether people are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply.
*Whether studies indicate fluoride's potential to cause a range of adverse systemic health effects.
*Whether, since fluoridation affects so many people, one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventative actions.

It should be noted that even if you are not living in a fluoridated community you are ingesting fluoride. When you eat foods and drink beverages that are not produced in your community you are likely ingesting substances that were produced with fluoridated water.

Despite the recommended ingestion of fluoride at 1.2 ppm, the reality is that people are ingesting fluoride at at least 8 ppm.

To solve the issue of tooth decay the proponents of fluoridation say more fluoride is necessary. The opponents of fluoridation say that more education is necessary. Education is needed about better diets, better dental habits and the dangers of sugar in relation to the teeth.

People with open minds need to get involved. Letters to Editors need to be written. City and state politicians need to be inundated with requests to discontinue the practice of water fluoridation. Pressure of non-reelection needs to be thrust upon them if they do not introduce bills to discontinue the practice.

Remember there are more tricks than pimps and hookers and we need to solidify to end this health damaging practice. The life you save and the health you restore may be your own.

Aloha!

References:
J.A. Yiamouyiannis, "Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay"
Paul Connett, PhD, "The Case Against Fluoride"
Chris Bryson, "The Fluoride Deception"


About the author:
I have been doing a weekly radio show in Honolulu since 1981 called "Health Talk". In 2007 I was "forced" to get a Masters degree in Nutrition because of all the doctors that would call in asking for my credentials. They do not call in anymore. Going to www.healthtalkhawaii.com enables you, among other things, to listen to the shows. I am an activist. In addition to espousing an organic vegan diet for optimum health, I am strongly opposed to GMOs, vaccines, processed foods, MSG, aspartame, fluoridation and everything else that the pimps (Big Pharma, Monsanto and the large food companies) and the hookers (the doctors, the government agencies, and the public health officials) thrust upon us, the tricks.
After being vaccinated with the MMS vaccine as a toddler I developed asthma. After taking the organic sulfur crystals in November of 2008 for 10 days my asthma reversed and has not come back over 2 years later. You can find out more about this incredible nutrient also on my website.
I am 72. I have been a vegetarian for 36 years and a vegan for 21. I have no illnesses and take no meds. I play basketball 2 hours a week, am in 2 softball leagues, racewalk, body surf, do weight workouts and teach women's self defense classes based upon 25 years of Wing Chun training.
My firm belief - if it had a face and a mother or if man made it, don't eat it.
Aloha!

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031335_wa...#ixzz1E2SNugh5

[TruthBrigade]

How Drinking Lots of Water Could Ruin Your Health: The Great Fluoride Fraud

Poison in Tap Water
 . . .  We would all be a lot healthier if the government would just stop poisoning us!
http://www.beyondhealth.com/

 
Drinking the recommended 8-10 glasses of water a day, if it's fluoridated water, could ruin your health, increasing your risk of hypothyroidism, immune system dysfunction, arthritis, and many other disease conditions including cancer. Dean Burk, the former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute has said that fluoridated water "causes more human cancer, and causes it faster, than any other chemical."
 
The fact is the American public is in toxic fluoride overload, particularly the 72% who drink fluoridated water. More toxic than lead, and only slightly less toxic than arsenic, fluoride has been added to U.S. public water for more than sixty years.
 
Last month, the Dept. of Health and Human Services (DHHS) recommended lowering the permissible levels of fluoride that can be added to water; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will now have the final say as to whether or not this is done. But even if this reduction occurs, it's nothing to crow about, because the only safe level is ZERO.
 
The History of Fluoridation in the US

 
Sixty years ago, it was well-known that fluoride was a poison (it was used to kill rats!). But the argument was made that in small enough doses it would be harmless and that it could reduce tooth decay. Unfortunately appropriate safety studies were never done, and, as I wrote about in "Fluoride Hazards," it has never been proven that fluoride protects teeth from cavities. In fact, the evidence suggests that while it makes no appreciable difference in cavities, it does considerable damage -- to bones and teeth, and also to the brain and nervous system, the intestinal lining, the kidneys, and the endocrine and reproduction systems. It also inactivates more than 100 different enzymes and depletes the body of calcium.
 
These are some of the reasons former EPA scientist Robert Carton has called fluoridation "the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century."
 
Indeed, fluoridation has a sordid history, beginning with an industrial waste problem in the 1920s. Fluoride is a major industrial pollutant.  In the 1930s the Aluminum Company of America encouraged research linking fluoride and cavity prevention in hopes of finding a way to dispose of its waste fluoride. From the beginning, science and government have been corrupted by an unholy alliance with business, and scientists who questioned the party line -- that fluoridation has been a big success -- have found themselves without jobs or grant money. For the gory details, read Christopher Bryson's The Fluoride Deception.
 
We Are Now in Fluoride Overload
 
Initially it was proposed that 1 mg of fluoride to 1 liter of water (mg/L) would be a safe amount. This assumed that everyone would drink a liter of water a day (equivalent to about a quart), so they would get 1 mg per day. Most fluoridated water today falls within the current DHHS target levels of .7 to 1.2 mg/L (the new recommendation would be .7 or below).
 
In 1982, data was presented in Japan proving that even 1mg/L can transform normal cells into cancer cells, but the average American is getting about 7 mg of fluoride a day.
 
Once fluoride is added to water, there is a "multiplier effect" as the water is used to irrigate produce, to process or dilute foods and in beverages. Fluoride is ingested in pesticide residues and is particularly concentrated in fruit juices; also in beer, soft drinks and soups. Bottled water is now fluoridated. Air pollution from industrial emissions is another source. Many pharmaceutical drugs, particularly psychotropic (like Prozac) and antibiotic drugs, contain fluoride. Making things worse, are mouth rinses and toothpastes. Fluoride toothpastes contain more than 1,000 times the concentrations of fluoride as drinking water; if a child were to eat a tube of toothpaste, it could kill them.
 
Fluoride Detox
 
How to detox from fluoride? The first step is avoidance. If you're living a healthy lifestyle you're already avoiding many sources of fluoride. You're eating organic and almost no processed foods. You're not drinking fruit juices or sodas. You're not taking medications, and you're using "clean" toothpastes, like the ones we sell at Beyond Health.  You have a home water purification system like ours that removes fluoride from your tap water (only reverse osmosis and distilling will remove fluoride).  You may even do regular saunas, which will remove fluoride in your sweat.
 
Fluoride depletes the body of calcium, but you're taking calcium along with its synergistic minerals in our Bone Mineral Formula. This formula also supplies boron, a mineral known for combining with fluoride and escorting it out of the body. Some mineral supplements contain trace elements of fluoride, but you're buying from Beyond Health, so you know this formula is free of fluoride and other contaminants.
 
You're also getting plenty of antioxidants like Vitamin C and Vitamin E that compensate for the oxidizing effects of fluoride, and you're eating an alkaline diet which compensates for fluoride's acidifying effects. You've checked your iodine status and are taking supplemental iodine if you need it (iodine competes with fluoride and helps to protect your body from it and eliminate it).  You're on a superior multi for general nutrient support, and you're supporting your body's ability to detoxify with the special nutrients in Cell Detox Formula.
 
Although fluoride is hard to avoid (it will even show up in organic produce if irrigated with fluoridated water) and although it bioaccumulates (meaning you can store more and more of it in your bones and other tissues over time), if you minimize the amount coming in and support detoxification, the good news is you can gradually release stored fluoride.
 
This will give you more energy to get out and join others in getting fluoride out of our public water altogether! See the Fluoride Action Network for more information.
Japan and most of the European nations have banned fluoridation. I find it outrageous that the government has put what is essentially a medication in public water without any vote from citizens.  I have heard that when Nelson Mandella was asked what he thought of democracy in the United States he said, "It think it would be a very good idea."

[lars24flem]

You have provided with a lot of information on use of Fluoride...

[PamelaW]

Can fluoride be removed from tap water using water filters? I know water filters can remove minerals and other contaminants but what about fluoride? Or can fluoride be boiled out or is there any way to remove fluoride from tap water?

[TruthBrigade]

Can fluoride be removed from tap water using water filters? I know water filters can remove minerals and other contaminants but what about fluoride? Or can fluoride be boiled out or is there any way to remove fluoride from tap water?

According to the guests and water engineers on our show, they say there is NO WAY TO REMOVE FLUORIDE once it's in there...the molecules are just too small.  No filters will remove it, although some may remove SOME of it for a short while like the Berkey filter.  BUT they say their fluoride filters last 6 months....that is not true, it will hold it up in the filters for about 2 weeks...any water drunk after that will have double the fluoride..........so you would have to change those filters every 2 weeks to be effective. 
You can't boil it out either, in fact Dr Wayne said boiling it makes it even more dangerous... 
The best method is to get clean water in the first place.  Dr Wayne recommends distilled. 
:-)